Four presentations were made to the United States Olympic Committee in mid-December, with Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington D.C. all making pitches to get the national backing for a 2024 Summer Olympics bid. A decision from the USOC is expected in “early January,” though no exact date is known yet. Even though USOC CEO Scott Blackmon declared the race currently a “four-way tie,” we decided to setup at least a basic bid comparison.

Looking over several categories, including possible budgetary costs, infrastructure upgrades, and even local opposition to hosting an Olympics, the comparison reveals exactly where Boston’s 2024 bid stacks up in relation to its counterparts.

Proposed budgets

Boston: $4.5 billion

Los Angeles: $4-5 billion

San Francisco: $4.5 billion

Washington D.C: $4-5 billion

Analysis: At the preliminary stage, very little is known about any of the bids’ financial specifics. Each bid, as you can see, has presented a first-glance budget that looks modest on paper. That they all appear to come into the same price range is notable, and currently it’s impossible to fully explain why beyond that it’s merely coincidence. One alternative explanation could be that the USOC mandated a budget for any prospective U.S. bid, and that they had to stay within it (they’ve apparently issued national directives before), but again, that is merely speculation at this point.

Boston’s wild card factor, perhaps appropriately, remains its people.

Required infrastructure improvements

Boston: There’s a clear necessity for infrastructure improvements, though according to page 17 of the Boston 2024 Olympics Feasibility Study (reported last February), the plan for Boston is already in motion, independent of an Olympic bid.

Los Angeles: Like Boston, Los Angeles organizers will cite the fact that the infrastructure improvements are already planned, regardless of any Olympic bid. Some $40 billion has been set aside for “airport and subway construction.” Of course, the traffic situation in L.A. is also terrible, so upgrades would likely be needed in that category as well.

San Francisco: This could be an achilles heel for the Bay Area bid, since they don’t appear to have infrastructure plans already in motion. The BART needs completion, and also other improvements are necessary. Those costs are not yet calculated, even to an approximate extent. Attempting to construct infrastructure plans around a bid could attract criticism.

Washington D.C: Essentially, nothing has been specifically stated, but given that the bid has disclosed its intentions to have a majority of the venues “inside or near the Capital Beltway,” it’s indisputable that infrastructure improvements would be needed (the Beltway is a notoriously mired in endless traffic). Also, a redeveloped Southwest Waterfront, as plans have mentioned, will require construction.

Analysis: This is the most difficult area to predict and analyze, given that the scope of development that is required for an Olympics. Los Angeles, with the most spread out setup for possible venues, could be at a disadvantage. However, the 1984 Games had surprisingly little traffic, according to LA Curbed, so miracles do happen.

Hosting experience

Boston: None

Los Angeles: Hosted both the 1932 and 1984 Summer Games. This is a gift and a curse. While it helps to ease any fears about the city’s ability to host, it also has a “been there, done that” feel to it. Considering also that a bid from Africa (a continent which has never hosted the Olympics) is expected, it could hurt American hopes to select a city that has already hosted twice.

San Francisco: None

Washington D.C: None

Analysis: There are several unique or appealing aspects about each bid (Los Angeles, as was explained, is grappling with a double-edged sword in its uniqueness as the only repeat host in contention). This presents correspondingly different advantages and problems for the other cities, who have never hosted. They are shiny and new in the eyes of the International Olympic Committee, but have question marks about their ability to host.

Olympic Stadium

Boston: Boston’s stadium would be built on largely uncontested land in Widett Circle. As part of the bid’s attempt to control costs, it would be a modular stadium. No stadium of this size (Olympic regulations mandate that it needs to hold at least 60,000) has ever been made in modular form, but the technology essentially already exists, as impossible as it sounds.

Los Angeles: The L.A. Memorial Coliseum, having already been used for the 1984 Games, would be used again. It would need to be renovated heavily, but since it’s already built, would probably be the cheapest of the four Olympic stadiums to have ready for 2024.

San Francisco: Like Boston, San Francisco is apparently pursuing a temporary stadium. Unlike Boston, a price tag is out for what it would allegedly cost, falling somewhere in the $350-500 million range.

Washington D.C: Nothing specific has been publicly acknowledged, though D.C. seems intent on building a permanent stadium, with the site of the old RFK Stadium seen as a possibility. They are the only one of the four bids leaning towards the construction of a long-lasting new stadium.

Analysis: Boston and San Francisco seem to have the most progressive idea, with a modular stadium concept, though Los Angeles already has its Olympic stadium, which just needs its upgrades. The only clear loser in this category should be D.C., given that the plan to build a completely new, 60,000-seater stadium is the most expensive option. That said, the USOC might look at a new (and permanent) stadium as an advantage.

Additional venues

No city is ever fully prepared for an Olympics. Even, as in the case of Los Angeles, if a city that has hosted before, updates are required. In the case of the four U.S. 2024 bids, every city needs an aqueduct center, a velodrome, and (except for D.C.) an artificial whitewater course. Essentially, they all have similar needs, making it tough to find a clear difference in each bid.

Boston does have a slight edge here, but only if they can truly harness a partnership with the large number of local colleges and universities. If that was possible, Boston would have an advantage in possible venue sites for events, housing, and potentially an athletes’ village.

Opposition to the bid

Boston: The Boston opposition, known as “No Boston Olympics,” is both active and organized. They have provided a voice for those who are skeptical, or merely for those who wish to have a discussion before events charge too far ahead. And most importantly (for their purposes), they’ve gained notice from the USOC.

Los Angeles: Given that they have already hosted twice in the city’s history, residents in Los Angeles do not appear to have formed much of an organized opposition yet. There is a belief that they might simply be waiting on the decision of the USOC.

San Francisco: Though there is a strong possibility that “private corporate sponsors” could help to deliver the $4-5 billion cost (with companies like Apple and Facebook being based close by), San Francisco will still inevitably encounter opposition, as the San Francisco Gazette noted, due to its status as a “politically charged and environmentally conscious” environment.

Washington D.C: While political activists have voiced their doubts, D.C., like L.A., has not invested itself in a substantial opposition at this point.

Analysis: So far, Boston has the “noisiest” opposition to the Games, but that can perhaps be explained by the fact that the city, unlike the other bids, has never even bid on the Olympics before, let alone hosted (like L.A.) While Washingtonians and San Franciscans might simply be waiting to see if they should take their city’s bid seriously (and thus worthy of formal opposition), Boston is already out in front in this respect.

Conclusion

Overall, handicapping the USOC’s prediction is extremely difficult, given that the four bids are so similar in many respects. That said, the overall comparison shows that Boston is, somewhat surprisingly, arguably the strongest. They require infrastructure improvements, but already have a plan in place. They also need certain venues, but so do the other cities as well. The Boston 2024 partnership is a collection of intelligent and powerful people, who understand how to put on an international event. They also have support from local government.

Boston’s wild card factor, perhaps appropriately, remains its people. If there was no opposition, the Boston bid would probably be a definitive frontrunner. However, not only is there opposition, but it’s the most prominent and well organized of any in the current U.S. bids. Keeping that in mind, it appears that L.A. is safest bet. They have the appeal of familiarity for the USOC. Still, for the real prediction, it would be that Washington D.C. has the best chance.

Not only does D.C. seem willing to build a new stadium, and is the only of the four bids to have an existing whitewater course (for what that’s worth), but its placement on the east coast is favorable in the eyes of the IOC, since there’s less of a time difference to other prominent international audiences, like Europe. Boston also enjoys this advantage, so again, the race becomes tough to ultimately predict.

Of course, even when the U.S. selection is known, it will have to overcome the challenge of the other international bids, which is another matter altogether.

Image via USOC 

You can read more stories on Boston startups, technology and innovation at https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/inno